■;•: •::: . :. '.::. : .'. .. 



E 440 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



Q00Q17Hb45A 



<2fc 












a^ . v ' • * <*U tr t ° " ° * **b a^ . * ' • * <** cr 6 • ■ • i 






vv 









°o 



•°<ft 



\^ V . i • * * *■■** oF fc ° " • * 








,<>*, 






t #»i 



* «? ^Ca. >0^t aV 1 




• • °* ?■ 












/\-»X ft*®*? * /.-J^:.V 









» » . » * 



JO * I 

<i_P c* * 




o* * 



^o* 




^ ** To ,o 









••sfc- ^ 

'* ^-^kX <?*$&>* **sM£k.%. 




** * 




■ * v <& 




>* u ... 















SPEECH 



OF 



HOK P. HITCHCOCK, 



OIF" GE^TJG^, 

» 

ON THE 



"BILL TO PREVENT GIVING AID TO FUGITIVE SLAVES.' 



HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIVES, FEB. 23, 1861, 



COLUMBUS: 

RICHARD NEVINS' STEAM PRINTING HOUSE. 

1861. 






Columbus, Ohio, House of Representatives, 
February 23, 1861. 
Hon. P. Hitchcock — Sir: Having listened ■with pleasure and profit to 
your remarks to-day on H. B. No. 350, we requst you to publish the same 
for the benefit of others. 

• c. t. blakeslee, 

alex. Mcpherson, 

ROBERT McCUNE, 
C. B. CHOATE, 
J. W. ROBINSON, 
I. A. CARTER, 
A. C. VORIS, 
,,- -^NO. HADDOW, 

. Ees. HisEflS#. ES > 

J. K. RUKENBROD. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON P. HITCHCOCK 

OF GEAUGA, 

ON THE "BILL TO PREVENT GIVING AID TO 
FUGITIVE SLAVES." 



Mr. Speaker : The question involved in the proposition we 
are considering, is one which attracts the attention and inter- 
ests the constituency I have the honor of representing on this 
floor to such an extent that I trust the House will excuse me 
for occupying its attention longer than is my wont upon sub- 
jects ordinarily before us for our consideration. Especially is 
there greater freedom in throwing myself upon the indulgence 
of the House, from the fact that it has not been done by me 
before upon subjects of the nature of that contained in the 
proposition before us, since my connection with the present 
General Assembly. 

Constantly and persistenly has the "irrepressible" been 
thrown in our faces, and we have been taunted with " abolition- 
ism," " one ideaism," desire for amalgamation," " love of the 
negro," and a sickly sentimentality generally — that we were, 
in°effect, disunionists, uniting with extremists of the South, 
and urging the country onward to destruction. _ 

Soon after the opening of the session, resolutions passed the 
General Assembly — in the Senate unanimously, and in the 
House very nearly so — giving expression to the sentiment of 
the-State upon questions which now agitate the country, and 
declaring that we will discharge our own and every constitu- 
tional duty ; at the same time, that we call upon our sister 
States to return too and discharge their duty. On the instant, 



the inventive genius and sensitive olfactory nerve of the mi- 
nority on this floor were put to the test to smell, or stir up 
something which should smell "nigger." In this course, they 
were aided by some other gentlemen, whose over-earnest pa- 
triotism led them to a course which, under other circumstances, 
they would not have pursued. In every " wood pile " the 
bunch of " wool " was found, and again and again were the 
charges rung upon us, day after day was the same scene gone 
over with, until from sheer exhaustion, or from some other 
cause, there has been a brief respite. It seemed that certain 
gentlemen were possessed with a perfect mania for stirring up 
something into which the poor negro could be introduced. 
Through all this contest I have contented myself with a silent 
vote. That vote conscientiously given ; in view of right, of 
justice, of fidelity to the constitution, and my oath to sustain 
that instrument. 

Again are these questions pressed upon us, and we are led 
to inquire, Where is all this to end? We have refused to 
pass laws for the more perfect protection of the free people of 
the State, and have passed a law, most odious in its features, to 
prevent the amalgamation of the white with the black race ; 
because, forsooth, the patriotism of some gentlemen led them 
to feel that it would be a panacea to cure the inj ured feelings 
of our Southern brethren. 

What more need we do ? Have we not done enough? Must 
we go still farther, and repeal all laws which look to the pro- 
tection of our people ? Must we pass additional ones, with 
provisions like those in the bill now pending, and others of a 
kindred character? Laws which, if carried out in their spirit, 
would inflict severe penalties upon that person who should 
give a cup of water, a bit of bread, or bestow a blanket upon 
the poor, shivering, hunted fugitive? Does duty demand 
this of us? Because we declare ourselves ready to discharge 
constitutional obligations and aid in enforcing constitutional 
law, shall we volunteer legislation unasked? The bill before 
us proposes to punish, by severe penalty, that person who, 
under certain circumstances, furnishes aid to the hungry, 
naked and needy fugitive. You cannot by law prevent it. No 
law can do it, and the attempt is simply an effort to exercise 
the law-making power, in obedience to a spirit of oppression, 
in stifling and preventing the manifestation of benevolence 
and outgushing sympathy of the human heart. Laws for this 
purpose will, from the necessity of the case, prove a nullity. 
The bill before us seems to be intended as an aid to the fugi- 
tive slave law. To Congress, as is claimed, belongs the right 
to legislate for the return of fugitives from service. If so, 



then in Congress vests the sole right, and to attempt aiding 
her in the exercise of that right is simply a work of superer- 
ogation. Meddling with that with which we have no right, 
and for which we receive no thanks. What is the object of 
thus going down and seeking for something we can volunteer 
to do ? Is it to appease the wrath and heal the wounded pride 
of our southern neighbors ? If they be really the heroes they 
are represented to be, the high-minded, honorable gentlemen, 
with right all on their side, (as we were told by a distinguished 
ex-Judge, in a speech in this city a short time since, and as 
has been pretty strongly intimated in this discussion,) they 
will despise all mean sycophancy, and spurn with contempt all 
degradation and self-abasement. 

As, in continuing this discussion, I purpose to follow the 
example of those who have preceded me, not confining myself 
solely to the provisions of the bill before us, but rather to 
speak generally to all relating to the same subject pending in 
the House, attention is, for a few moments, called to the report 
of the standing committee on the Judiciary upon the bill in- 
troduced by the gentleman from Licking (Mr. Woods), to re- 
peal the second section of the act passed April 17, 1857, "to 
prevent kidnapping." What are the provisions of that sec- 
tion ? It reads as follows : 

"That no person or persons shall kidnap, or forcibly, 
or fraudulently carry off or decoy, out of this State, any black 
or mulatto person or persons, within this State, claimed as fu- 
gitives from service or labor, or shall attempt to kidnap, or 
forcibly, or fraudulently carry off or decoy out of this State 
any such black or mulatto person or persons, without first 
having taken such black or mulatto person or persons before 
the court, judge, or commissioner of the proper circuit, dis- 
trict or county having jurisdiction according to the laws of the 
United States in case3 of persons held to service or labor in 
any State, escaping into this State, and there, according to the 
laws of the United States, establishing by proof his or their 
property in such person." 

Is there aught in this section to which any person can ob- 
ject? Aught more stringent or effective than Ohio — than 
any free — than any State should have upon her statutes for 
the protection of the free people of the State ? _ Aught that 
patriotism, philanthropy, Christianity, right, justice, and free- 
dom, can object to? Aught that fidelity to the constitution 
and comity with our sister States will conflict with ? It seems 
to me not. Then why repeal it? We are told that it is un- 
constitutional, and interferes with the enforcement of the laws 
of the United States. If so, if this or any other law be un- 



6 

constitutional, then let it be repealed. Not because there be 
anything in the present condition of the country which de- 
mands unusual action at our hands. Not because our south- 
ern neighbors complain of our laws, nor because we have 
resolved to repeal those laws which may be unconstitutional, 
but because it is right. Not at this time more than any other, 
but because at all times we should be ready to discharge duty. 
No other motive need, none other should control our action. 
So far as the legislation of our State in its internal affairs is 
concerned, that which is right to do now is right to do at any 
other time, that which is right to do at any other time is right 
to do now. The State is sovereign and independent only so 
far as that sovereignty has been merged in the general gov- 
ernment for the best good of the whole. Being thus, with 
its legislation, no other power has to do, except when that 
legislation conflicts with the constitution, and thus with the 
rights of other States. But this section proposed to be re- 
pealed is declared to be unconstitutional. We are told that 
distinguished legal gentlemen in the other branch of this Gen- 
eral Assembly declare it to be unconstitutional. Our own 
Judiciary committee, in the report before us, take the same 
position, and decide it to be so. Can I doubt it? However 
much I may, and do regard the opinions of those gentlemen, 
and however ready I may be, under ordinary circumstances, 
to govern my action by those opinions, in this case, hav- 
ing taken an oath to support that constitution, and having 
some faint idea of the meaning of language used, although 
my eyes may not see as clearly, my ears hear as plainly, 
and my understanding judge as correctly as those of oth- 
ers, yet by that seeing, hearing and judging, must I be 
governed. Hence upon this question, viewed from this stand 
point, must I be permitted to doubt, and doubting, to act ac- 
cordingly. Wherein does the section under consideration 
conflict with the constitution ? An examination of the va- 
rious authorities quoted by the majority in its report, shows 
this to be the substance of decisions of the United States Su- 
preme Court, where this principle may be supposed to be in- 
volved, more concisely stated, perhaps, in that known as the 
Prigg case, than any other. 1st. That the owner of a slave 
has the right to seize and recapture a slave where, and when- 
ever he can do so, without force or illegal violence ; " and 
2d. That any State law or regulation wbich interupts, im- 
pedes, embarrasses, or in any way postpones the exercise of 
this right, is void." While other decisions of that court de- 
termine that to Congress belongs the right to legislate for the 
return of fugitive slaves, and also that the present Congres- 



sional enactment upon that subject is in accordance with the 
constitution. Now does the statute we are considering con- 
flict with those decisions ? as, without stopping at all to con- 
sider these authorities, or to bring forward counter authori- 
ties, we prefer to consider it in the light of the decision named. 
Certainly this statute does not conflict with the first point 
made in the Prigg case, not at all. That asserts the_ right of 
the owner to take his slave without compulsion. This statute 
only requires that if he attempts to take him by force, and 
remove him without taking him before the proper authority 
and proving his claim, then he shall suffer a penalty, severe, 
it is true, but can it be aught too much so ? It is a penalty for 
the attempt to subject a free man to slavery. Is it too much 
that he who attempts this enslaving shall himself be bound { 
Does it conflict with the second point, or with the fugitive 
slave law ? No. It does not in any way interfere with or 
prevent the exercise of the right on the part of the owner 
when he attempts to recover his slave without the exercise of 
force. But the fugitive slave law having been passed requir- 
ing certain steps to be taken by the claimant, this law is passed 
imposing a penalty upon that person who comes in the State 
and attempts forcibly to remove any of its people without 
first having complied with the provisions of that law. It is 
placed upon the statute neither in aid, nor in opposition to the 
law of the United States for the rendition of fugitives from ser- 
vice, but is a State law, passed for the protection of the people of 
that State. In so doing it imposes a penalty for the breach of its 
provisions, those provisions copied from, and made to corres- 
pond almost precisely with those of the other. Can it then be 
unconstitutional? But we are urged to this repeal, as we 
have been to the defeat and passage of other measures, be- 
cause the times and condition of the country _ demand it. But 
this can be no reason, as before intimated, if there be aught 
in the provisions of this statute wrong, or in interference with 
the constitution, let it be repealed. 

If right, justice and a proper regard to the interests of the 
people of our own State demand the passage of measures like 
that now under consideration, then let them be enacted, other- 
wise not. , 

The gentleman from Pickaway (Mr. McSchooler) told us on 
yesterday that we must pass this and other kindred measures 
to conciliate our southern neighbors. Is this so? 

Is aught that we have done, or may do, to accomplish any- 
thin<* involving the uncertainty which hangs over us, and stay 
the tide of secession and disunion threatening entire destruc- 
tion ? What care our southern neighbors for what we may do 



8 

in the repeal or passage of laws ? True, for a little time they 
did make the existence of such laws a pretext for the course 
they were pursuing, and were determined to pursue, but how 
soon was that pretext abandoned ! What they desire we can- 
not by State legislation give them; and the attempt to satisfy 
or reconcile them by passing, or refusing to pass, any measure 
through this body, is sheer folly. We have declared our senti- 
ments upon the subjects which agitate the country, and 
proffered to the General Government aid, when demanded, for 
the enforcement of the laws. W e have sent commissioners to 
meet and confer with those of other States upon the condition 
of affairs, and strive for some solution of the dilemma in which 
we find ourselves placed. If by this, aught of good will be 
accomplished, is in doubt. But, having done thus much — 
having, as we believe, placed ourselves in the right — let us turn 
our attention to our appropriate business, the interests of our 
own people, of our own State, and leave consequences to 
take care of themselves. It does appear to me that there is no 
good reason for the passage of measures like that before us, 
or any of the many propositions of like nature, and for the same 
purpose, pending in the House. No good can come of them ; 
they will only tend to degrade us, lessen our self-respect, and 
lower us in the estimation of those whose favor we may attempt 
to court. 

Having said thus much, I perhaps ought no longer to occupy 
the attention of the House ; but having, since the opening of 
the session, been so often referred to, together with other mem- 
bers from the section of the State which, in part, I represent, 
as radical, and as among those who are not willing to give up 
party for the sake of the country, I hope to be excused in a 
few general remarks upon the condition of that country, and 
the duty of true patriots in the present crisis. Eepublican as 
I am, and radical as are my principles, it is only that in the 
prevalence and purpetuity of those principles that, to me, dawns 
hope for the best interests of our country. In the first organ- 
ization of our government antagonistic principles were brought 
together, and, by compromise, united. One of these principles, 
full of life, of vigor, with the elements of expansion and suc- 
cess; the other, with the seeds of corruption and decay in its 
very nature, yet controlled with that strong bond of selfishness 
which ever holds its advocates fixed and united in purpose, for 
the accomplishment of any of its ends. Thus, by the love of 
power, have parties been led to employ the united advocates of 
this principle for their success, and through this influence, thus 
exerted, has slavery had control of this government almost 
from the very day that the system became profitable. Thus, from 



9 

force of circumstances, have the advocates of this system been 
urged on to renewed and constant efforts for its perpetuation 
and extension. But freedom, light as air, spreads on the wings 
of the wind, while slavery, heavily loaded with chains, drags 
herself slowly along, and comes last to the goal ; so that, not- 
withstanding advantages granted to the slave power in the first 
formation of the confederacy, and the frequent additions to her 
prospects for advancement, through repeated accessions of terri- 
tory, sought and obtained for its especial accommodation, the ex- 
pansive and progressive force of free institutions is such as to 
bring them constantly in the ascendency. To prevent this re- 
sult, this slave interest, through the majority it secures by 
throwing its united vote for those men and that party who con- 
sent to lend themselves to its purposes, that thereby place and 
power may be secured, removes landmarks long established in 
the country, and awakens a new and unheard-of excitement. 
Consequent upon this act creating this excitement, a new party 
springs into being. That party, with no farther extension of 
slavery and free homes for free men upon its banners, achieves 
the victory, and Abraham Lincoln is elected President. Here, 
and from this, call it pretext or occasion, or what you will, is 
where the present difficulties arise, or perhaps more properly 
where they gain their power to disturb the country. With a 
different result in the election of 1860, no one supposes that 
recent events, which have so tended to excite and distract the 
country, would have occurred. No doubt many men prominent 
among the leaders in this disunion movement at the South, 
rejoice at this result. 

Having so long, in their mind's eye, followed the " ignis 
fatuus" which has been leading them on— the dazzling pros- 
pect of a brilliant Southern Confederacy — in which slavery 
should be extended and perpetuated, and the cotton and sugar 
trade of the world monopolized — the leaders rejoice at this 
opportunity to take advantage of the prejudices of the masses, 
which had been excited by misrepresentations of the true sen- 
timent of the North, as exemplified and attempted to be car- 
ried out by the Eepublican party, to accomplish their long 
concealed purposes of secession and dissolution. Want of 
fidelity to constitutional obligations, passage of personal liberty 
laws, disinclination to enforce laws for the return of fugitives, 
are only pretexts used to inflame the minds of individuals and 
of States whose support they wish, while at heart rejoicing at 
the result. Those leaders are now in open rebellion against 
the laws and government of the United States, and yet meas- 
ure after measure like that now before us is urged upon us 
and we are told to pass them that they may be appeased. For- 



10 

ciblj having possessed themselves of forts and arsenals, dock- 
yards, mints, and other property of the United States Govern- 
ment, they now call upon that government to treat with them 
for the surrender of other such property within their limits; 
threatening by force to take possession of the Capital of the 
nation, built by the common resources of that nation, at an 
expense of $150,000,000, and to prevent the inauguration of 
a President constitutionally elected ; and yet we are called 
upon to sit silently by, not to whisper a word or lisp a protest, 
else some one may be offended. For months, and even years, 
has this feeling been gaining ground, and preparations have been 
carried forward for this dissolution movement. A military 
spirit has been cultivated — arms have been secured — organiza- 
tions, secret and open, entered into, to train and discipline 
forces for the coming contest, and yet if one now suggest the 
idea or propriety of making some little preparation for con- 
tingencies which may arise, we are told "Hands off! take 
care ! you will needlessly excite the sensitiveness of our south- 
ern brethern;" and immediately, with horror expressed in 
every tone, the cry of " Coercion!" is rung in our ears. You 
have no right to coerce a State. Bat then has a State the 
right to coerce the General Government ? What less ? What 
different are, and have been, States attempting ? With force 
of arms surrounding and seizng upon forts and arsenals within 
their limits, and with greater force and more extensive prepar- 
ation investing other positions not yet reduced, they demand 
their unconditional surrender. War is, and has been for 
weeks, actually begun upon the part of these States, although 
prosecuted thus far without bloodshed ; they, by force of num- 
bers, overcoming and carrying one position after another, 
and yet we are called upon to legislate carefully not to disturb 
their equanimity. 

South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, withdraw 
from the Union, siezingupon, and taking with them, whatever 
of public property they can secure. Florida, purchased with 
the money of the whole country, hesitates not to follow in 
their wake, appropriating herself to herself, and to a Southern 
Confederacy ; Louisiana, in like manner, obtained with mil- 
lions of money, that thereby the mouths of the Mississippi 
might be secured to the country free and untrammeled, coolly 
takes herself away ; and now Texas, having thrown upon the 
country the burden of her debts and of an expensive war, fol- 
lows in their train. Each State, as she goes, appropriating 
to herself hundreds of thousands, yea, millions of the property 
of the General Government ; and yet we are told that govern- 
ment cannot coerce — has no right to make war upon a State. 



11 

True ; it may be so. Who disputes the want of power to 
make war upon a State ? And yet who can dispute the right 
of Government to defend itself and protect its property? 
This only should it do. This only need it do. If in defense 
of its rights, of its property, collission ensues, who is respon- 
sible for that collission but the party making the attack? 

The following " Tennessee View of Coercion," clipped from 
the "Nashville Banner," enforces this view : 

"Citizens of seceding States seize and hold the arsenals and 
forts of the United States by armed force. They drive out 
all United States officers found therein. Is that coercion or 
not ? And is it the duty of the United States Government to 
submit to coercion ? Citizens of the seceding States seize the 
mints and treasures of the United States, and rifle the mails 
at pleasure, and threaten with death any United States officer 
that opposes. Is that coercion or not? If so, is it the duty 
of the United States to submit to it ? 

" So far all the coercion, all the resort to force, to military 
force to violate rights, laws and property, has been on the 
part of seceding States. And yet all the howl that has 
filled the nation against coercion, has been poured forth by 
those daily resorting to it ! It is right enough for any mob to 
seize the property and trample on the flag of the Union, but 
damnable coercion if the Union refuses to submit to be robbed 
and insulted by such hands." 

Want of decision, of firmness, has brought our country into 
her present unhappy condition. We have just passed through 
a Presidential election. The various parties selected their can- 
didates, laid down their platform of principles, and entered 
into the contest. By necessity one of those parties is victo- 
rious ; another, which has been so long in the ascendency and 
has controlled the policy of this government much of the 
time from its formation, is defeated. Immediately, when in 
the minority, it finds itself terribly oppressed by that govern- 
ment administered by itself. It must be this, or there is no 
cause of complaint — for that party succeeding in the election 
never was in power, and there are no administrative acts of it 
of which there can be complaint. Now what does this party 
propose to do? Simply to restore the administration of the 
government to original principles. When and where this may 
affect the question of slavery, to treat it as our fathers treated 
it, as a local institution, governed by local laws, not to inter- 
fere with it in States where established by such laws, to per- 
form all the duties devolved upon us by the constitution in re- 
lation to this subject, however repugnant those duties may be 
to our views and feelings — because it is in the bond to perform 



12 

and fulfill all the obligations of that bond. It is a system to 
us loathsome in the last degree, and we can but feel that the 
panting fugitive who seeks escape from its galling chains is 
entitled to our sympathy. Yet we will interpose no obstacle 
to him who seeks, in a legal manner, to sustain his claim to 
that fugitive. At the same time, we unhesitatingly demand 
a like security for any citizen of this State to pursue his busi- 
ness or pleasure in any other State, giving him that protection 
guaranteed by that provision of the constitution which "gives 
to the citizen of each State the privileges and immunities of 
the citizens of all the States." 

Having taken the position we have done, we are told that 
we must compromise ; that having gained a victory, we must 
yield the fruits of that victory. Instantly the vanquished, in- 
stead of gracefully yielding and submitting to the regularly 
determined majority, demand the surrender of all claimed by 
the victor — the vanquished dictating terms to the victor. Yea, 
more, traitors dictating terms to that government against which 
they are plotting and acting treason. Shall we, frightened by 
the noise and confusion, turn, and swallowing our words, give 
the lie to all our previous professions ? Is the position we 
have taken right? the principle we have advocated just? Or 
have we no confidence in its truth, its justice, its importance ? 
We are told that we must compromise, that we must yield up 
something, or our Southern brethren will continue going away 
as they have been going, until the Union is broken, our Con- 
stitution overthrown and government destroyed. If it must 
be so, then let it come, and let the responsibility rest upon 
those so madly bent on pulling down this proud fabric built 
by our fathers at such a cost of blood and of toil. If they 
can stand it, so can we. That the Union is more important to 
us than to them cannot be. Not that we would undervalue 
the Union and its advantages ; by no means. Rather let it 
be perpetuated ; let it continue and be strengthened, going on 
to accomplish all its high destiny. Let its proud flag, under 
which has been achieved so much of honor and of good, never 
trail in the dust, but still spread to the breeze, without one 
star stricken from its ample folds, there continue to float, our 
own pride and a beacon of hope to the oppressed of every na- 
tion. But rather let every one of those stars go out and fade 
away in eternal night, than that it shall continue to float only 
as a symbol of union, for the support of a system of oppres- 
sion and wrong. 

To sustain this Union, we must concede and compro- 
mise, and surrender, and yield up what? Our manhood 
We must abandon long cherished, and what we believe 



13 

to be correct principles— we must consent to constitutional 
changes— must give guarantees — must get down and humbly 
ask our Southern bretheren what legislation will suit them, 
then must haste to grant it. Can we do all this ? more is de- 
sired. Not only must we do this, but we must refrain from 
saying aught against the system of slavery ; we must cherish 
it, must look upon it as a beneficent, a christian, a divine insti- 
tution ; must say to it not only use what you have, but spread 
and occupy to your fill. Wherever the flag of our country 
floats, there shall go slavery, there to be encouraged, fostered 
and protected. We beg to demur. To us the Constitution is 
good enough— that constitution, as made and administered by 
its authors. We will abide by it. It requires of us duties 
repugnant to our sense of right, of humanity, yet those duties 
shall be discharged. But we say plainly, unequivocally, that we 
do not, can not, toill not admire the institution ; can not love it, 
will not cling to it, and shout around it in our self abandon- 
ment, as a system containing the ne plus ultra of all that is 
right, lovely, and of good report. Neither can we consent to 
its extension. In the States where it now exists, keep it as 
you desire, make the most of it. We have no power, neither 
have we the inclination to interfere with it, but no farther ex- 
tension. Thus far has it come, and no further shall it go. 
What is the object of constitutional change. The recognition 
of the right of property in man, and this in some form to be 
recognized I understand to be the real object of such change. 
The constitution now recognizes slavery as a local institution, 
the subject of local law. The change is desired that it may be 
nationalized. Can this be done? Will the people of the 
North sustain such a change ? Never. 

For one, I should be very much pleased at an amicable ad- 
justment of questions which now agitate the country, but it 
must be confessed the prospect is dark ; clouds lower around 
our political horizon, and it seems very doubtful if any pow- 
er shall be able to drive them away, and restore us to a condi- 
tion of peace and quietness, prosperity and happiness. It has 
seemed to me, it yet seems, that firmness and decision, calm and 
resolute determination, with fixedness of purpose to do and 
yield what was right to all sections and all parties, both by 
government and people, was that which was most needed, for 
the purpose of finally extricating the country from difficulties 
which now surround it. That there is much acrimony and 
bitterness of feeling between the different sections of the 
country, there is no use to deny. That this has been much 
increased by intemperate denunciation from both sides, there 
is no doubt. Of its still greater increase by misrepresentation 
for personal and party ends, I do not hesitate to aver my be. 



14 

Still the only important fact at this time is, that it is so. 
For the allaying of this feeling and the showing of a readi- 
ness to hear and weigh complaints — the exhibition of a desire 
to be fully understood — the manifestation of a disposition for 
conciliatory feeling and action, and the gaining of time in 
which the sober, second thought of the people should have 
effect, could I only find reason for the appointment of a 
commission like that provided for by this General Assembly 
a few days since. For the accomplishment of any end beyond 
this I could not hope, or see ground for hope. When we 
come to talk about compromise, there seems no hope of any 
good. What have we to concede ? And if we make concessions 
what evidence have we of the probability of their acceptance, 
and of that acceptance settling the difficulties under which we 
are laboring? Is it by the adoption of the Crittenden or any 
other like proposition? Our Southern brethren scorn that, or 
any thing which does not yield the whole, or main point 
by them claimed ; and if agreed upon, it will never be sanc- 
tioned by the people of the North. Any attempted arrange- 
ment which should be entered into, which will not be sustained 
by the people of all sections afterwards, will only complicate, 
and make more serious our difficulties. One thing, it seems 
to me, is fully and sufficiently determined upon and indicated — 
the people of the North will not consent to the further exten- 
sion, the nationalization of slavery, and the making the gen- 
eral government responsible for it any where. Then where is 
our hope ? Not in a compromise which shall only open the 
way for future troubles, for thus has it been in all the history 
of our country since the adoption of the constitution. Every 
concession has been to this slave interest, each addition of ter- 
ritory has been at the instigation of this slave power, out of 
which addition of territory the questions of difficulty have 
arisen. So now all concessions asked, are by this same in- 
tersest. 

So passing strange is it that this interest which has had pos- 
session of the government during almost its entire existence, 
and has moulded the policy of that government, should under 
it have been such a sufferer as to require constant concession 
as relief from onerous burdens placed upon it. And now, at 
the first prospect of a change in the policy of that govern- 
ment, even partial though it may be, State after State active 
in this interest withdraws itself from the Union. Talk about 
the aggressions of the North, there is no force in the assump- 
tion. All the foundation for any thing of this kind there can 
be, rests simply in the fact that the expansive power of free 
institutions is such that with all the advantages which may be 



15 

given slavery in the opening of the race, those institutions 
outstrip her, and aie in the majority. Give to the slave inter- 
est an assurance of constant and permanent control of the 
government of the country, and occupancy of its offices, and 
you need have no fear of the cry of northern aggression. But 
if good might be accomplished by compromise, where is the 
hope of any such being effected. 

The reports from the "Peace Congress," so called, to which 
so many have looked for some satisfactory result, only indicate 
the passage of any measure which may be agreed upon by a 
bare majority. Can any gentleman suppose that a plan of 
adjustment, endorsed and presented in thi3 way, is to be re- 
garded and sustained so as to dispose of existing difficulties ? 
No, very little hope can be in compromise. Then where is 
it? Certainly there is none in the passage of bills like those 
before us. Not at all. Then where is it ? It must be con- 
fessed there seems little hope any where. Only can it be 
found in standing by, striving for, and sustaining the Union un- 
der the Constitution as it is ; maintaining and enforcing the laws 
in all sections and upon all parties. It is no time to change. 
If we cannot live under the Constitution as it is, if alienation 
of feeling, of interest, of purpose, is such as to prevent it 
certainly in this time of excitement, we cannot change that 
instrument with any safety. No ; let us rally around it, with 
it determine to stand or fall, under its ruins, if it must crum- 
ble, let us be buried; let its flag be our winding sheet, and its' 
last expiring groan the requiem sung at our burial. 

Taking this position, and resolute in purpose, firmly main- 
taining it, let us trust in God, and in a returning sense of right, 
of justice and of interest for a solution of all our difficulties. 



*> 



& A VI 



•2* ' ' ° A v 












"o^ 



*o « » * A, 



^ 
<*>. 



-»V in *Jt* A \ \** * . • * .0 O *o . t * A. 

*0 K °<^x 


















" -a u ^ •• » ^ i Li 








.' a* ** °o 




• • A 



lV^ 



♦*'** 







■*oK 











v-cv 















v^ ^-.sr.-\** ^;^ff'/\ 









«*v M * v ** *yfws <&? v, -.tiara ♦• * v "v -yjw* * 



>°**. 










^. %0 J? * v 



? 















